Douglas Wilson’s Letter From Moscow

Racial Animosity

Douglas Wilson

Blog and Mablog

December 23, 2014

The cross of Christ deals with real sins, not imaginary ones. It deals with real sins by offering free and full forgiveness. It “deals” with imaginary sins by enabling  us to see them for what they are — vain constructions of our own imaginations.

When it comes to issues of race, the cross of Christ puts enmity to death. The problem that must be overcome is racial animosity — hatred, spite, bitterness, and envy.

“Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby” (Eph. 2:15–16).

In the cross, God crucified racial enmity. He killed hostility, and because Jesus really died, He killed it dead — but only in Christ.

Because liberals believe that man is basically good, they have identified the culprit as “prejudice,” or “discrimination.”
In this scenario, everybody is supposed to mean well, but must be instructed on the proper ways of staying out of micro-aggressions.

This can work for a time. If you hector people enough about  the little things, they will stuff the big things. For a time.

But then something happens, or a series of things happen, and all the pent-up animosity erupts. Now the thing to remember about an animosity eruption is that by this time in the cycle nobody cares what you think of them. You try to remonstrate with them . . . “but that’s racist!” And they reply, “So?”

Over the last week we have seen anti-cop protesters chanting, “What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want it? Now!” On the other hand, we have seen a wildly tone deaf misappropriation of Eric Garner’s last words — pro-cop demonstrators wearing “I Can Breathe” T-shirts. If you point out how inflammatory this is, both ways, you will be surprised to discover that being inflammatory was the point.

Liberal bromides cannot deal with this. Feel good gospel coalitiony group hugs can’t deal with it. Those with an impotent message have to pretend that racial animosity is really a matter of petty bigotry, because they think they have a message that can handle petty bigotry. But in order to deal with racial animosity, racial hatred, racial hostility, Jesus had to die and rise. The good news is that He did so.

Because He rose from the dead, black men can repent of their envy, hatred, and resentment. Because He died as a perfect sacrifice for sin, white men can repent of their insolence and contempt. And we have gotten to the point in this story of ours, where this message — the death of race hate in the death of Jesus — is a message that needs to be preached.

Because of the nature of the message, the color of the one preaching it is irrelevant. The only color that matters is how red the blood was.

Letter From the UK (About The Lunatic Asylum)

‘Refusal will result in a Racial Discrimination note being attached to your child’s educational record…’

By Daniel Hannan 

Last updated: November 22nd, 2013
The Telegraph

What is the single most depressing aspect of this letter? Is it the idea of labelling eight-year-olds racists? Is it the moronic conflation of religion and ethnicity? Is it the ugly grammar (“As such our expectations are that all children in years 4 to 6 attend school on Wednesday…”)? Is it the bullying tone? Is it the unconscionable choice of font? Is it that someone can write that way and yet hold a position of authority in a school?

Or is it this: that how ever many times prime ministers declare multi-culturalism to be a failed ideology, a petty, officious, bossy, self-righteous, self-serving, Leftist chunk of the public sector remains stuck in 1980?

Extenuation by Race

Wretched Argument for Racial Inferiority

If we were Maori, with just the slightest smidgeon of self-respect, honour and decency, we would right now be hanging our head in shame and boiling with righteous anger, both at the same time.  On what provocation, we hear you ask? On this:

Christchurch defence lawyer James Rapley said Maori should receive shorter prison sentences because they come from an environment of social deprivation and inequality.  “Fifty-one per cent of the prison population is Maori,” he told the Court of Appeal. “Everyone says everyone should be treated alike and equally, but not everyone is equal.”[NZ Herald]

Rapley was arguing before the Court of Appeal to get the sentence of one Fabian Mika reduced by ten percent on the grounds that he was Maori.  Not, notice, on the grounds of Mika’s remorse over his crime, his early guilty plea, his efforts at restitution of his victims, or extenuating circumstances, but because of his race.
 

The three Court of Appeal judges said they struggled with the concept of reducing a sentence based on race. . . . “You’re asking us to take a pretty radical step and we just won’t do it on a wing and a prayer,” Justice Rhys Harrison said. “Because he has some Maori blood – and we’re not sure how much – he’s somehow less blameworthy or culpable. That’s an extraordinary proposition.”

We should think so.  What Rapley was arguing must be deeply offensive to all honourable Maori.  He is asserting a principle of Maori being morally deficient and defective.  He is asserting that Maori are morally inferior–as a race! 

But Rapley went on to explain that Maori criminality was plainly evident in the prison statistics:  Maori make up 15 percent of the general population, but 51 percent of the prison population.  Why might that be?  Well Rapley is certain that the fundamental causes are not to be found within the hearts and minds of Maori people, but in external circumstances. 

“Everyone recognises there has been a history of colonialism, displacement, high unemployment, lower educational attainment and high level of incarceration for Maori,” Rapley said.

Colonialism made me do it, your honour.  Displacement has suborned me to a life of crime. High unemployment of Maori people has led me into criminal paths.  Lower educational attainment of my people has made me set my sights on theft and rapine.  In sum, I have been conditioned to evil by my socio-economic-ethnic matrix.  At that point, Rapley is implying that Fabian Mika is more like a dog, not a grown, mature human being.  At this juncture, Rapley may evoke feelings of pity towards Mika, or guilt because we have all treated Mika like an animal, but–and here is the rub–such appeals to pity can only be traded upon if we all accept (including the accused himself) that Fabian Mika is sub-human.  That is the problem.  That is why the argument is so offensive.  But worse, it requires that all Maori be so regarded–as an inferior race.

Now, to be sure, Charles Darwin would readily have accepted such a notion. He believed that primitive humans were less human, less evolved than more educated and sophisticated races.  But we utterly deny the proposition.  We join with all Maori who rightly are outraged by Rapley’s arguments.  We refuse to entertain, even for a moment, the idea that Maori should be regarded as animalistic or sub-human.  

None of this is to say that Mika’s circumstances and matters which may extenuate or magnify his guilt ought not be taken into account by the courts.  But to argue extenuation on the grounds of race is an entirely different proposition which can only proceed on the basis of some form of Maori inferiority and reduced moral culpability–something we do for children, the insane and animals. 

If Fabian Mika is a human being, and he is, then he is properly and rightly to be held responsible for every thought, word, and deed.  That is what is means to be in God’s image.   To argue otherwise is ethically bent and an egregious insult to Mika himself and his race. 

German Public Health Dangers

“Anti-Discrimination” policies always were ridiculous. But now they turn into a serious danger.

Posted on | June 25, 2013 by J.C. von Krempach, J.D.

Turtle Bay and Beyond

 

The fight against “discriminations” reaches a new extreme in Germany, where the Bundesärztekammer (BÄK), a body representing the country’s healthcare professionals, has proposed to abolish a ban against homosexuals to act as blood donors. The BÄK announced its intention to work towards the lifting of this prohibition, which it described as “discriminatory”.

The ban has, however, an objective reason: it is the fact that “men having sex with men” (“MSM”)  are 100 times more likely than other people to carry HIV. Indeed, when HIV/AIDS first emerged in the 1980s, it was mainly through homosexuals that the virus spread, and contrary to Africa, where it affects much wider spheres of the population, in Europe and the US it still remains a disease with a nearly exclusive link to male homosexuality.

Is this “discriminatory”? It is one of the most remarkable successes of the gay lobby that it still is allowed to frame HIV/AIDS as an issue related to “LGBT discrimination”, just as if it was unfair for the virus to befall them rather than anyone else.
Supposedly, if the virus was fair, it would infect heterosexuals, and if heterosexuals were fair, they would carry their share of the AIDS burden.

The annual “Life Ball” in Vienna: is the adulation of homosexuality really going to help in the fight against AIDS?

But alas, nature is “heteronormative”. In reality, it is mainly (if not exclusively) due MSM and their irresponsible sexual practices that the HIV/AIDS was able to spread around the globe in the 1980s and 90s, and that it still exists today. MSM are actually not the victims of society, but on the contrary, society is their victim. Yet they still continue organize so-called “charity” events like the ignominious annual “Life Ball” in Vienna, presided over by celebrities like Bill Clinton, as if the promotion of the homosexual lifestyle could contribute to stopping AIDS. No, dear friends: the only way for you to be safe is to repent and to give up homosexual activity!

The absurd discussion about the alleged “discrimination of homosexual blood donors” shows once again the irrationality of contemporary anti-discrimination talk: even the best and most compelling rationale is not accepted when it comes to the unequal treatment of homosexuals. Apparently, society should accept an increased risk of spreading HIV/AIDS among non-homosexuals rather than giving offence to homosexual wannabe blood donors.

In that regard, I have an alternative proposal: only MSM should get blood transfusions from MSM, and only non-MSM should get blood transfusions from non-MSM. Whoever finds this discriminatory should explain to me why he thinks that getting a blood transfusion from MSM is not desirable…

A Small Blow for a Free Society

Political Correctness Takes a Hit

A new Race Relations Commissioner has been appointed in New Zealand.  The position has gone to Dame Susan Devoy, one of our great sportswomen.  Some Maori have been up in arms.

The problem is that Dame Susan has had the temerity to express her frustration over Waitangi Day.  She also has particular views about women wearing burquas.

What is amusing and telling in the splenetic eruption are the arguments and reasons for objecting to Dame Susan’s appointment.  Firstly, the Maori brigade, as reported in the NZ Herald.

Maori groups in particular questioned enlisting someone who had been outspoken in her disdain for New Zealand’s national holiday. . . . In Parliament, Maori Party MP Te Ururoa Flavell queried the choice, noting that Dame Susan had “already courted controversy with her views”.
Mana Party president Annette Sykes went further, demanding that Dame Susan stand down because she was not fit for the role.  “It’s so disturbing that someone with a clearly expressed … viewpoint can be appointed to a job that’s about providing independent leadership and advice on race relations, including public education on the Treaty of Waitangi,” Ms Sykes said in a statement.

Then there is the Islamic response:

President of the Federation of Islamic Associations Dr Anwar Ghani said Dame Susan should tread carefully with her new responsibilities.  “She’s entitled to her opinions, and I hope she would not bring that into her new role as the race relations commissioner.  You have to realise that this is a very diverse country, and you have to respect every diversity,” he said.  Mr Ghani said he hopes Dame Susan has changed her view on burqas.

OK, so what are the views expressed by Susan Devoy that has folk in a tizzy?

Dame Susan wrote a column in the Bay of Plenty Times last year which criticised the way Waitangi Day had been “marred” by protest.  She expressed her frustration that New Zealand’s national holiday was not a day of celebration.

In a separate column, she described burqas as “disconcerting” after witnessing an Auckland bus driver refusing to let a woman board a bus because she would not remove her burqa to be identified.  “Muslim women need to respect the need to sometimes de-robe in order to allow identification while New Zealanders should respect the personal choice made by these women without being ignorant and abusive,” she said.  “I wouldn’t want to see us legislate the ban of the burqa, as much as I find them disconcerting.”

There is a view amongst some that good race relations means agreeing with and kowtowing to everything they (the minority) do and say.  Annette Sykes appears to hold this view: the Race Relations Commissioner is to her mind a public official who would mouth and support all her particular views on the Treaty of Waitangi and Maoritanga.  Mr Ghani also appears to be of this mindset, but in his case he wants the Commissioner to respect every diversity: that is, he wants the Commissioner to mouth and support all the views of himself and his associates.  Anything less would be a defalcation of her duties.  Any contrary opinions she has need to be kept strictly private.  In the public sphere, what we say goes.  You keep your views private and out of the public sphere.

We have presented here the sad and dangerous face of political correctness and the increasing attempt by many to restrict the free speech of others with whom they disagree.  For our money, we hope that Susan Devoy continues not just to hold her apparently reasonable views, but brings them to bear in her role.  If nothing else it should result in the dismissal of frivolous and time wasting complaints from self-perceived victims of racial discrimination.  Many of these have more to do with attempts to make political points than with genuine racial discrimination. 

Secondly, it is not appropriate for pressure groups and minorities to insist that public officials hold the same views and express the same concerns that they may hold.  If Devoy were to use her office and position to persecute those who disagreed with her, that would be one thing.  But to criticise an appointment just because the appointee has views with which you disagree is something entirely different. 

To our mind, Minister Judith Collins (who made the Devoy appointment) had it exactly right when she was quoted as follows:

Mrs Collins said it was not unreasonable to hold views that were not “politically sanitised”.

Leading Indicators

Winnowing Forks and the Wind

God’s people are always being winnowed and refined.  It’s not something many Western Christians give a great deal of attention to, although we expect that this will not continue to be so.  When our Lord was about to commence His public ministry the prophet, John the Baptist was sent by God as a forerunner, to prepare His way.  John said of Jesus’ coming ministry,

He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.  His winnowing fork is in his hand, to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire. (Luke 3: 16,17)

This winnowing–separating the wheat from the chaff–occurs through the proclamation and ministry of the Word of God.  God’s ministers address His people with enjoinders such as, “Choose you this day whom you will serve, but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” (Joshua 24:15)  But it also occurs through oppression and public rejection and mockery of the Christ and His people.
  When a culture turns against the Christ, it costs people to profess Christ.  Fellow travellers will not pay a cost for belief.  Their hypocrisy is revealed and they drift away.  On the other hand, Christians of different groups and denominations close ranks and pull together.

In New Zealand today the opposition to Christ and His people is slowly mounting.  The opposition is beginning to insinuate itself into the law, into the courts, and into the Parliament.  It has long been found in government schools and the media and amongst the Commentariat.

Here is an illustration of what we have in mind.
  A church in the Wairarapa was to allow a well-known and popular singer to perform in its church building.  However, consternation arose when it became known that the singer was a public lesbian, thereby making her public performances inextricable from her sexual perversions.

Singer Anika Moa has had to switch venues for her Wairarapa concert because an evangelical church objected to her sexuality. She was due to perform at Masterton’s Lighthouse Church on March 23, but promoter Mark Rogers said it became clear after the booking was made that some members of the church were not comfortable with hosting her.

A solution was reached when the promoter Anika Moa switched  her performance to St Marks Anglican Church in Carterton.  It appears that the Lighthouse Church endeavoured to be as kind and civil as possible.

Lighthouse pastor Russell Embling said Mr Rogers had decided to move the gig after discussions with church leadership. He would not comment on whether some of his flock were opposed to having a lesbian singer perform. He said the church held to “traditional biblical values regarding marriage and the family”. The church had offered, in good faith, to pay for some of the costs incurred, including new concert posters and tickets, and had given the money to Mr Rogers, he said.

Enter homosexual advocate and Green Party MP, Kevin Hague:

Mr Hague, a veteran gay rights activist, said the church had arguably “created a situation where the promoter feels he has no choice but to shift the venue – it could be classified as constructive discrimination, which would be illegal”. 

Here is the hint of the winnowing to come.  Constructive discrimination is illegal.  A church, by refusing to allow its venue to be used for a public performance by someone whose morals were offensive, is liable to be accused of constructive discrimination.  The vice of pagan law begins to tighten.

Throughout it all, the Saviour is applying His  winnowing fork to His people.  No doubt the Lighthouse Church members and leaders will have looked at one another, thought, read their Bibles afresh, and concluded that the use of their church for entertainment by a public homosexual was wrong.  They have been choosing this day whom they will serve.  But maybe there will be folk in the congregation who will decide after all that they think their church was wrong to object to Anika Moa’s performing in their house of worship.  They may well leave the church.  That’s what a winnowing fork does–it tosses the wheat into the wind which then blows away the chaff–the empty, dry bits of straw clinging to the grain.

Then there is the Carterton Anglican Church.  It too is being winnowed, and its chaff is blowing in the wind.  In this case, the church leaders appear to be revealing themselves as the chaff.

St Mark’s vicar Jenny Chalmers said she regretted the attitudes of some within the Lighthouse congregation. “I’m really sorry for that, because sexuality is such a small part of a person’s makeup.”

The reality is that we Christians and churches need refining all the time.  Most often the Lord deploys suffering to complete this vital and holy work.  Many, many older Christians face the attenuation of their bodies and physical capacities together with the attendant pain and discomfort.  As the outer man wastes away, the inner man grows.  This is part of the refining fires of our loving and gracious Lord.  He disciplines those whom He loves.  

But it is likely we will increasingly see and experience the winnowing work being done through pagan opposition to the Gospel and hatred of the Lord and His Church.  But, ironically this also brings great encouragement.  It is a leading indicator that God is at work and is beginning to stretch forth His mighty arm.

A Victory for Our Dominant Religion

Minatory Developments

A dominant religion progressively builds the prevailing culture in its own image.  As secularism is the dominant religion in the West, it is building progressively a secularist culture that excludes genuine Christians to an ever greater degree.  Christians and the Christian faith are being ghettoised. 

A salient manifestation of this phenomenon is the increasingly strident demand that one’s Christian faith remain a silent and private affair.  Society demands that one must restrict one’s faith to the space between one’s ears.  As soon as a Christian steps out of bed he is expected to act and think and worship like a secular humanist.  To the extent that he does not, he will be progressively excluded from participation in the community. 

Here is an example from the UK and Europe.
  Three cases have just been heard in the European Court of Human Rights.  All involved Christians resisting rules and regulations and judgments in the UK which denied the expression and application of their faith to the way they lived.  The Daily Telegraph takes up the issue:

Campaigners claimed that “millions” of people who hold traditional “politically incorrect” views could now face new restrictions because of rulings against three other Christians involved in the European Court of Human Rights case. They claimed that the judgment actively increases the risk that those who dissent on the issue of same-sex marriage will not be free to voice their dissent.

So the first thing to go is freedom of speech.  There are some things which one can no longer aver because the law–mandating the dominant secular humanist culture–forbids it.  This is the secular humanist version of blasphemy laws.  One of these is the denial of free speech against homosexual “marriage”.  That’s the implication of the rulings of the court.

But it is not just free speech.  A further implication of the rulings is that if anyone works in the marriage or counselling “industry” and conscientiously objects to homosexual “marriage” because they are Christians they can legitimately be fired, fined, or even imprisoned, depending on the local and particular statutes on the books.   

Significantly, [the Court] also threw out parallel challenges brought by two other Christians who lost their jobs for taking a stand on what they saw as a matter of conscience.  Gary McFarlane, a Relate counsellor, and Lillian Ladele, a marriage registrar, both resisted performing tasks at work they believed would amount to condoning homosexuality.  Miss Ladele was disciplined by Islington Council for asking to be excused from conducting civil partnership ceremonies.

Gary McFarlane indicated during a training course that if the situation ever arose he might have a conscientious objection to providing sex therapy to a same-sex couple on account of his Christian faith. He was dismissed for gross misconduct for discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.

Christian need not apply!  It’s beginning to look like the old Soviet Union when non-communist Party members were semi-ghottoised, kept from jobs, made unemployable, and reduced to second-class citizens.  The marginalisation of Christians is an inevitable consequence of the dominant secular humanist religion conforming all culture and social interaction to its own doctrines and image.

Paul Lambdin, partner in the employment department at Stevens & Bolton said: “Those with religious faith will take scant comfort from the ECHR’s decision to allow the wearing of a religious symbol at work (when there is no health and safety risk). “It appears that those Christians, Muslims and others who disagree with same sex marriage and/or civil partnerships will be excluded from certain jobs. He added: “These cases demonstrate the difficulty of divorcing a belief from its practice. “The practical effect is that Ms Ladele, Mr McFarlane and others with similar religious convictions may be lawfully excluded from certain jobs.”

 A spokesman for the Christian Institute painted the picture of the broader implications:

Mike Judge, spokesman for The Christian Institute, which supported Miss Ladele, said: “What this case shows is that Christians with traditional beliefs about marriage are at risk of being left out in the cold. “If the Government steamrollers ahead with its plans to redefine marriage, then hundreds of thousands of people could be thrown out of their jobs unless they agree to endorse gay marriage.”

Andrea Williams, director of the Christian Legal Centre, which supported Mr McFarlane and Mrs Chaplin, said: “If the Government redefines marriage in the next days and weeks we are going to see more and more cases like this because there are millions of Christians that believe that marriage is between a man and a woman and will have conscientious objections to facilitating that.”

This is but one issue.  There will be more, many more issues where secular humanism will drive to conform society to its dogma and doctrines.  It is pretty clear that in the shorter term it will be successful.  This is what it means when a formerly Christian society falls under the judgement of the Almighty.  God turns His face away and dominion is given to the Devil for a time.  One of the first targets of oppression, punishing those who refuse to accept the doctrines of secular humanism, is always the Christian Church.  As Peter puts it: “For it is time for judgement to begin with the household of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God?”  (I Peter 4:17)

One consequence of the oppression and suffering is always the purification of the Church itself.  When the fiery trials fall, fellow-travellers within the Church lapse and depart.  Those truly born of the Spirit reconfirm and recommit their loyalty to the Saviour.  Oppression radicalises belief, in the sense that it drives it more deeply into the heart.  The Church is made more pure as a result. 

But Unbelief can only remain regnant for a time.  It ultimately gnaws upon itself and destroys itself.  God’s judgment thus falls upon Unbelief, bringing to nothing.  But let no Christian amongst us be unclear or blind to what is happening in the West and what the implications are for us all.  Again, the words of Peter are becoming more and more relevant to our days:

In this you greatly rejoice, even though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been distressed by various trials, that the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold which is perishable, even though tested by fire, may be found to result in praise and glory and honour at the revelation of Jesus Christ.  (I Peter 1: 6,7)

The times are a’ changing–and our faith will be proved by fiery trials.  It’s time for all Christian parents to be thus warning, preparing, and encouraging their children and grandchildren for what they will most likely have to face. 

Integrating into the Void

Marriage Progressively Meaningless and Empty

One of the unintended, but real consequences of the acceptance of homosexual “marriage” is that the state will end up so inflating the concept of marriage that it will eventually become meaningless (at least in official parlance and practice).

Here is an example of the inflation to which we refer:  The Guardian reports that a homosexual marriage campaigner is arguing that heterosexuals are going to be face discrimination  in the UK–but not for reasons that you might expect:

Meanwhile, the gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell said that under the new law, heterosexual couples would have fewer rights than gay couples.He said: “Despite proclaiming that the legalisation of same-sex civil marriage is driven by the principle of equality, David Cameron is expected to retain the inequality of the current legal ban on heterosexual civil partnerships.

“Opposite-sex couples are legally prohibited from having a civil partnership and David Cameron intends to keep it that way. This will mean gay couples will soon have legal privileges over heterosexual couples.  “There will be two forms of official state recognition for lesbian and gay couples: the present system of civil partnerships and the new system of civil marriages. Heterosexual couples will have only one option: marriage. They will be subjected to legal inequality and discrimination. This is very wrong. I support straight equality.”

This will leave everyone wondering what would be the difference between a “civil partnership” and “marriage”.  The answer, nothing.  What’s the difference between de-facto relationships and marriage and civil partnerships?  Nothing–of any substance.  It’s only about style preference.  Some people prefer to live in a town house, others a bungalow.  What’s the difference?  Just style and matters of personal taste.

All of which reinforces a point made here previously: the imposition of homosexual “marriage” will take the next step to destroying the distinctiveness of marriage as a God-ordained and defined institution that it will increasingly become meaningless in the modern secular western world.  This in turn will provide a wonderful opportunities to the Church to draw still more sharply the lines between Belief and Unbelief.  Mere cultural Christianity is going to be less and less viable.  The likely result will be, firstly a winnowing and reformation within the Church itself (a process now well underway), and secondly, a repentant return to God by thousands upon thousands.  Why?  Because within a few generations it will become clear that the way of Unbelief is the way of human degradation, suffering and profound unhappiness.

We also want to remind readers that we have made the point before that the watershed decision taken that began society’s attenuation of marriage itself as far as Unbelief was concerned was the introduction of no-fault divorce in  New Zealand in 1981.  Now, thirty years later (roughly a generation) we are faced with the legal recognition of homosexual “marriage”.  Along this devolving journey marriage, in the mind of Unbelief, has become a progressively meaningless construct.  But not to God, not to His ordination of the institution, and not to human beings.  Rather, Unbelief is becoming more and more inhuman and inhumane.

It was not until the Prodigal Son faced up to the degradation of his life that he began once again to think longingly about his father’s house.  These are the things for which we should be praying as mad, febrile politicians attempt to lead us to their dystopian version of a Promised Land.

The New Model Man

Trying Harder

Over recent months we have discovered the corpus of C J Sanson, a writer of tight, illuminating historical novels.  His premier character is a hunchback lawyer, Matthew Shardlake practising amidst the turbulent times of Henry VIII.  It has often been observed that superior historical novels are one of the best ways to access particular historical periods and times: Dr Sanson’s work perfectly illustrates the point.  His historical knowledge is both comprehensive and compelling. 

He has also set novels in the twentieth century.  We have recently read Winter in Madrid, a novel set in Franco’s Spain in the early 40’s.  In this novel Sanson portrays (in passing) the fantastical notion held by many communists and socialists of the day: when the revolution comes, human nature will be transformed.
  Self-interest, even enlightened self-interest would be naturally and irresistibly replaced with the interests of the collective, or society, being placed first in the heart of every man (recalcitrants having been either re-education camps or executed).  The New Model Society both creates the New Model Man and is progressively built by the same transformed humanity.

The idea lingers on today, albeit now widely discredited and exploded.   But it keeps appearing, attempting a revival, a comeback in various forms.  This transformation in human nature from self-interest to collective-interest is now to be achieved by persuasion, education, conditioning, regulations and laws.  The attempts are most often derisory and stupid.  For some reason their protagonists don’t realise how inane they appear. 

Here is one egregious example: the attempt to create the New Model Man in the US State Department.  Within the miasmic halls of Foggy Bottom there are attempts underway to bring forth this New Model.  In the vanguard is a Chief Diversity Officer.  His role is to ensure that all bureaucrats and functionaries within the State Department properly reflect the collective interest, which, in this case, means collective man first.  All discrimination between human beings is to be wiped away from the collective memory.  All discriminatory language is to be erased from individual memory banks. 

Idiotic, but true apparently, according to the Daily Caller:

New frontiers in hypersensitivity: State Department officer says ‘holding down the fort’ is racist

Will Rahn

8/30/2012

ADVERTISEMENT

John M. Robinson, the Chief Diversity Officer at the U.S. Department of State, wants America’s diplomats to know that common phrases and idioms like “holding down the fort” are, in fact, deeply racist.

Robinson, who also serves as director of the Department’s Office of Civil Rights, used his “Diversity Notes” feature in the July/August issue of the official “State Magazine” to examine the hateful roots of everyday sayings. In one recent public relations kerfuffle at Nike, Inc., he wrote, the company torpedoed a sneaker called the “Black and Tan.”

“What a wonderful celebratory gesture and appreciation for Irish culture. Not!” wrote Robinson, an adult.
Robinson notes that “Black and Tan,” in addition to being an enjoyably robust alcoholic concoction, can refer to the brutal Protestant militiamen who ravaged the Irish countryside in the early 20th century — which is why Irish bartenders always get so upset when you order one.

In an effort to avoid offending those notoriously fragile Irish sensibilities, Nike pulled the shoe from stores. Robinson would like us all to learn from the sneaker company’s inadvertent racism and really start watching what we say. For example, did you know “going Dutch” is a reference to Netherlanders’ apparently well-known parsimoniousness, and that your widowed neighbor, sweet old Mrs. Rasmussen, cries every time she hears you use it?

And did you know using the phrase “holding down the fort” is the linguistic equivalent of scalping a Cherokee? According to Robinson, the phrase dates back to American soldiers on the western frontier who wanted to “hold down” all that land they stole.

“Handicap” and “rule of thumb” are two more figures of speech that Robsinon, in his wisdom, has decreed offensive. The latter, Robinson says, refers to the width of a stick a man could once use to legally beat his wife.

And in case you’re wondering how he could have done all the etymological detective work necessary to conclude that these phrases came from where he says they came from, and still have time to perform his Chief Diversity Officer duties at the State Department, wonder no more: Robinson doesn’t really know if any of this is true.

“Much has been written about whether the etymologies below are true or merely folklore, but this isn’t about their historical validity,” Robinson writes. “[I]nstead, it is an opportunity to remember that our choice of wording affects our professional environment.”

Duly noted, Mr. Robinson.

As Chesterton observed, when men stop believing in God, they don’t believe nothing: they believe everything.  The idiotic credulity of believing in the creation of the New Model Man at Foggy Bottom is an apt example of the syndrome.  Pathetic, but true. 

Douglas Wilson’s Letter From America

Chick-fil-A and the Attack of the Tyrannatots 

Culture and Politics – The Bible, Culture, and Race
Written by Douglas Wilson
Sunday, 29 July 2012

The outlines of the latest Free Speech Clown Car Review are pretty familiar by now. Dan Cathy, the COO of Chick-fil-A, was asked his opinion on homosexual marriage, and he, being a good Christian man, said he was agin it. This should not have been an astonishment, for it has pretty much been the mainstream position of Western civilization from Moses down to the Obama of about three months ago. But a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, as the fellow said, and so who cares anymore? That man with all the chicken has clearly DEVIATED, and he must be CORRECTED.

Now boycotts are things that folks like to do from time to time, and we do not like to deny them their little amusements. But boycotts are harder to pull off than they look — conservatives face-planted with their boycott of Disney, and the homobifiers now are unlikely to establish in the minds of the general populace any necessary connection between “gay oppression” and the eating of chicken sandwiches.

This being the case, enter gummint coercion.

>Beware The Energizer Bunny

>Gender Quotients

Over at NZ Conservative, Andrei has published a cheeky little number.  Actually, we trust Andrei’s life and slur insurance is paid up and ready to go, for he is living dangerously.  He has somewhat foolishly dared to criticise the established religion in Aotearoa.  Next he will be featured on I Shouldn’t Be Alive.

The particular article in Aotearoa’s secular creed  which Andrei has challenged is the official dogma of wimmin’s equality in the workforce.  As our NZ readers will be aware there has been a bit of a stoush going on Down Under about whether female employees take more sick days than male.  The Public Service Association (a union of state sector employees) has done some statistical analysis and “proved” that the gender difference in sick days taken is so close as to be a rounding error.